Wearing of anything with religious symbols in public

[Xelsis]

So your solution is to change it by enacting a discriminatory ban on Christianity that will dramatically increase the percentage of whites discriminated against?

Yes. I believe Christians perpetuate a culture that cannot be tolerated in our new society. Europe must change and embrace the values of progressivism, tolerance, and diversity.

Banning a religion is an intolerant act which reduces diversity. You contradict your own goals in doing so.

[New haven america]

So your solution is to change it by enacting a discriminatory ban on Christianity that will dramatically increase the percentage of whites discriminated against?

Yes. I believe Christians perpetuate a culture that cannot be tolerated in our new society. Europe must change and embrace the values of progressivism, tolerance, and diversity.

Europe has, as stated before, it's one of the least Christian places in the world.

[New haven america]

Yes. I believe Christians perpetuate a culture that cannot be tolerated in our new society. Europe must change and embrace the values of progressivism, tolerance, and diversity.

Can a christian not embrace values of progressivism, tolerance, and diversity?

No, not at all. *Nod*

[Dylar]

It used to be #1 in Europe... Ah, how I miss Christendom...Actually, shouldn't the Vatican technically be #1 on that list? It's its own state, if I remember correctly...unless it also is ruled under the Italian government.

The Vatican's... weird. I guess you could count it as #1, however, it only has a population of 1000 and most (If not all) of the population are immigrants.

Same could be said about America, except for the Native Americans...

[Valgora]

The Vatican's... weird. I guess you could count it as #1, however, it only has a population of 1000 and most (If not all) of the population are immigrants.

Same could be said about America, except for the Native Americans...

Someone born in America isn't an immigrant.

[Dylar]

Yes. I believe Christians perpetuate a culture that cannot be tolerated in our new society. Europe must change and embrace the values of progressivism, tolerance, and diversity.

I believe ALL religion in general, and Abrahamic religion in particular perpetuate a culture of hate.

It would be best for the world if everyone would stop bothering about their nonsense, but at the very least, keep it to themselves.

Love one another, as I have loved you.

[New haven america]

The Vatican's... weird. I guess you could count it as #1, however, it only has a population of 1000 and most (If not all) of the population are immigrants.

Same could be said about America, except for the Native Americans...

Um... America's the 3rd most populated country in the world, and technically 80-90% of people here are Native Americans.

I honestly hate the term Native American, considering that anyone born and raised in NA and SA are natives. I just don't see why we can't use Aboriginal, but sure, let's just use the more contradictory term instead.

[The Grene Knyght]

So your solution is to change it by enacting a discriminatory ban on Christianity that will dramatically increase the percentage of whites discriminated against?

Yes. I believe Christians perpetuate a culture that cannot be tolerated in our new society. Europe must change and embrace the values of progressivism, tolerance, and diversity.

They cannot be tolerated in order to embrace tolerance?

[Kubra]

Yes. I believe Christians perpetuate a culture that cannot be tolerated in our new society. Europe must change and embrace the values of progressivism, tolerance, and diversity.

They cannot be tolerated in order to embrace tolerance?

You know you're talking to a troll account, yeah?

[Central European Commonwealth]

Love one another, as I have loved you.

I doubt Jesus wrote that - as statistically speaking, if he would've existed - he was most likely illiterate.

[Valgora]

I doubt Jesus wrote that - as statistically speaking, if he would've existed - he was most likely illiterate.

I think the point is that that would be something he said. Translated, obviously.

[Dylar]

Same could be said about America, except for the Native Americans...

Um... America's the 3rd most populated country in the world, and technically 80-90% of people here are Native Americans.

I honestly hate the term Native American, considering that anyone born and raised in NA and SA are natives. I just don't see why we can't use Aboriginal, but sure, let's just use the more contradictory term instead.

Meant that as "originally we were immigrants." My mistake.

[Grave_n_idle]

Yet a private business is not the law. It is a private business. It makes its own choices.

This whole point was addressed.

Once again, the law treating you unequally is distinct from an individual treating you unequally. Private discrimination is not public discrimination.

You can go so far as to try to extend that to punish a business for discriminating against someone who doesn't have a degree in the field, for example. Is it discrimination? Yes. But it's something they are well within their rights to do.

Besides, the Civil Rights Act of 1965 already forbids discrimination in employment based off of religion. It shouldn't, but it does-which means you're complaining about nothing.

Your first point is shown to be irrelevant by your last point.

Oh, so you don't have an argument, you'll just fall back on "Well, you're a discriminator!" instead.

I made an argument. Whether or not you are 'a discriminator' is external to that.

[The Misconception]

My friend often gets told to remove his hammer of thor symbol because people see it as 'intimidating.' Not sure how a tiny hammer on a necklace is intimidating, but it's a regular occurrence for him.

'intimidating' lol, how daft! intimidated by difference, sad world we live in

[Jamzmania]

Same could be said about America, except for the Native Americans...

Um... America's the 3rd most populated country in the world, and technically 80-90% of people here are Native Americans.

I honestly hate the term Native American, considering that anyone born and raised in NA and SA are natives. I just don't see why we can't use Aboriginal, but sure, let's just use the more contradictory term instead.

That's what "Indian" is for.

[Sanctissima]

Um... America's the 3rd most populated country in the world, and technically 80-90% of people here are Native Americans.

I honestly hate the term Native American, considering that anyone born and raised in NA and SA are natives. I just don't see why we can't use Aboriginal, but sure, let's just use the more contradictory term instead.

That's what "Indian" is for.

That can be confusing as all hell when you live in a community that has an equal measure of both North American and East Asian Indians.

Personally, I prefer Amerindian and Aboriginal. Both are straightforward and to-the-point.

[New Grestin]

It's really just a matter of moderation. If your business is cool with you wearing religious imagery, than no big deal. If they're not, then the problem is on your end. They aren't obligated to let you dress however you want. Most businesses have a dress code, and if your religious imagery or garb violates that, they have every right as your employer to put their foot down.

In the case of the college student being asked to remove the cross, that's a similar matter. At one point in the article, it mentions that her supervisor asked her to hide it or remove it. I should emphasize the point that it was her supervisor. Her temper tantrum because of this simple request certainly doesn't help her case. The supervisor, her boss at her position, has the right to request she make changes to her attire to match proper dress code. If the supervisor believed that the cross necklace would offend others, than he or she is perfectly legitimate in asking her to remove it.

Christians are, frankly, a pretty piss-poor example to use for a "persecuted" group. Christians in the Modern United States and Europe are about as persecuted as puppies and romance novelists.

[Genivaria]

I rather think there are only very rare occasions where this MIGHT be justified but I can't seem to think of any.
And I'm the anti-theist.

[Salus Maior]

I wear a small electric chair around me neck. That's what I do for my faith.

Fine. I imagine some goths do that already.

[SUNTHREIT]

Freedom of religion is guaranteed in the constitutions of every Westernized nation in the world. I don't know if it also entails freedom of irreligion, but rest assured that you can practice your own religion and still not get into a lot of cultural trouble for it.

I've read some cases about Christians being disallowed from wearing any jewelry featuring a crucifix or any Christian symbol:

• University Tells Studen to Remove Cross Necklace
• Christians have no right to wear cross at work, says Government

I know, these are all cases where a Christian was involved, but it can happen to anyone regardless of religion. I wear a bracelet with a crucifix (sans Jesus nailed on it) and nobody ever seems to shit on me for that (Philippines, lol). In my opinion, everyone is allowed to wear anything with religious symbols in public, so long as nobody is using said stuff to harm, but why is it that the act of merely wearing jewelry featuring a religious symbol is a violation of rules to some?

Sure, we Christians may not be required to wear anything featuring a crucifix (or any depiction of canonical Bible stories or significant figures), but just because we aren't required to wear anything doesn't mean we must ban it.

NS, be the judge.

Point of order: "No right to do something" is not the same thing as "cannot do something".

You're a great poster, Vassenor. Whenever I see your flag pop up in any thread, I can always tell what the post next to it is going to say based on what the most progressive opinion I can think of is. I don't even need to read what you're saying to know your viewpoint and arguments, I just need to know what the thread is about and know that it's you typing.

You're always going to attack the same stereotypical things (Christianity, Western civilisation, heterosexuals, white people, etc) and come to an uncompromising defence of other stereotypical things (assorted brown people you don't really give a shit about the cultures of, simultaneous Christ-bashing and Islam apologism, defence of all sorts of non-heterosexual non-cisgender whatever people). You seem to be pervaded by a bizarre post-modern moralism that informs your every thought and opinion, and it almost turns you into the rhetorical equivalent of a checkout machine- repetitive, droll, unaware, predictable.

Your ideological is rigidly orthodox, conforms to every single stereotype of modern progressives and almost reads like a caricature. You act like the personification of the "SJW" that the alt-right and others use as a cultural boogeyman.

It amazes, worries and slightly annoys me, all at the same time, that a conscious, breathing person can act and think like this, like a complete stereotype. How did you actually reach these opinions? What solid justification do you have for them? It all borders Poe's Law but it doesn't make it there. I understand your viewpoints but I can't bring myself to take you seriously.

This is not flaming or trolling or baiting, I'm being genuine and honest and serious here. You amaze me.

[Telconi]

Point of order: "No right to do something" is not the same thing as "cannot do something".

You're a great poster, Vassenor. Whenever I see your flag pop up in any thread, I can always tell what the post next to it is going to say based on what the most progressive opinion I can think of is. I don't even need to read what you're saying to know your viewpoint and arguments, I just need to know what the thread is about and know that it's you typing.

You're always going to attack the same stereotypical things (Christianity, Western civilisation, heterosexuals, white people, etc) and come to an uncompromising defence of other stereotypical things (assorted brown people you don't really give a shit about the cultures of, simultaneous Christ-bashing and Islam apologism, defence of all sorts of non-heterosexual non-cisgender whatever people). You seem to be pervaded by a bizarre post-modern moralism that informs your every thought and opinion, and it almost turns you into the rhetorical equivalent of a checkout machine- repetitive, droll, unaware, predictable.

Your ideological is rigidly orthodox, conforms to every single stereotype of modern progressives and almost reads like a caricature. You act like the personification of the "SJW" that the alt-right and others use as a cultural boogeyman.

It amazes, worries and slightly annoys me, all at the same time, that a conscious, breathing person can act and think like this, like a complete stereotype. How did you actually reach these opinions? What solid justification do you have for them? It all borders Poe's Law but it doesn't make it there. I understand your viewpoints but I can't bring myself to take you seriously.

This is not flaming or trolling or baiting, I'm being genuine and honest and serious here. You amaze me.

Vassenor is just the reason Poe's Law exists. Nobody could fabricate a satirical position that we haven't already seen believed in earnest (by Vassenor).

[Central European Commonwealth]

I doubt Jesus wrote that - as statistically speaking, if he would've existed - he was most likely illiterate.

I think the point is that that would be something he said. Translated, obviously.

Fair enough. According to the same people, Jesus also had no intention of bringing peace to Earth as long as people didn't love him more than their families (Matthew 10) and he approved of all the evil shit in the OT, in Matthew 11 he condemns entire cities to death, and in Mark 7 he criticizes Jews for not killing their disobedient kids.

The only good use I see for Jesus (if he would exist in the first place) is to go down my kotłownia. and start my stove. A late-season snowfall dumped 30 centimetres here last night.

[Kilobugya]

To me the rule is simple : the state and related authorities should be neutral, and no agent wielding state power directly or indirectly (policemen, judges, teachers, doctors, nurses, elected representatives, ...) should wear a visible religious symbol while they are in service.

For all the rest, people should be free to wear religious symbols, as long as there is non-religious reason to do otherwise (health, safety, dress code at work, ...).

[Old Tyrannia]

Neither should be given any special exemption, because there is no compulsion in Christianity to wear a crucifix every day

While there is no compulsion, some Christians view it as necessary to grow in their faith. Take Catholics for example, we pray the rosary with rosary beads, which looks like a necklace, yet we aren't required to do so.

Exactly- you aren't required to do so. Now, before you attempt to strawman me, I wish to reiterate that I don't think crosses should be banned within the workplace. I merely stated that if one bans a certain religious symbol from being displayed then one should ban all religious symbols from being displayed, rather than discriminating against a particular faith; however there should be exemptions allowed for religious symbols that are literally mandated by the person's faith, as the five Ks are for Sikhs. This category does not include the rosary.

and no compulsion in Islam to wear the hijab.

It depends on which branch of Islam we're talking about. The Sunni's, the Shiite's, or whatever other branch of Islam there is.

There is no Quranic requirement for Muslims to wear the hijab. It's a cultural, not religious, requirement. /discussion

I doubt Jesus wrote that - as statistically speaking, if he would've existed - he was most likely illiterate.

He was almost certainly literate; the Gospels suggest that he was able to read scripture, and many secular studies of the historical Jesus have suggested that he may have had a rabbinical training that would by necessity require him to read Hebrew. Of course, he didn't write that particular quote- it was written down by John the Apostle. Jesus is believed to have said it, or something similar, however.

[Neanderthaland]

Freedom of religion is guaranteed in the constitutions of every Westernized nation in the world.

I depute this.

For one thing, Great Britain doesn't have a constitution.